NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 vs NVIDIA Tesla C2075 Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 and NVIDIA Tesla C2075 represent two distinct eras of GPU design, with the former built on modern Turing architecture and the latter on the older Fermi 2.0 architecture. The data reveals a decisive performance gap, with the GTX 1660 achieving 360.1% higher scores in the only shared benchmark. The Tesla C2075, despite its professional compute pedigree, is limited by its 2011 roots, while the GTX 1660 benefits from a 12 nm process node and significantly higher clock speeds. This analysis walks through the architectural, benchmark, and specification differences to determine which GPU holds up better in a modern context.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the GeForce GTX 1660 than the Tesla C2075 in compute workloads?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark, the GTX 1660 scores 47,850, while the Tesla C2075 scores 10,400. This represents a 360.1% advantage for the GTX 1660, making it more than four times faster in this specific test.

Q: Which GPU has a higher memory bandwidth?

A: The GTX 1660 offers 192.1 GB/s of bandwidth, whereas the Tesla C2075 provides 150.3 GB/s. The GTX 1660 achieves this with a 192-bit bus, while the Tesla C2075 uses a wider 384-bit bus but with slower memory clocks.

Q: What is the transistor density difference between the two?

A: The GTX 1660 has a transistor density of 23.2M per mm², based on 6,600 million transistors on a 284 mm² die. The Tesla C2075 has a much lower density of 5.8M per mm², with 3,000 million transistors on a 520 mm² die.

Q: Which GPU supports more modern APIs?

A: The GTX 1660 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Tesla C2075 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but has no Vulkan support listed.

Q: How do their pixel and texture rates compare?

A: The GTX 1660 delivers 85.68 GPixel/s and 157.1 GTexel/s. The Tesla C2075 achieves only 16.07 GPixel/s and 32.14 GTexel/s, representing a substantial advantage for the GTX 1660 in rasterization throughput.

Q: What is the power connector requirement for each?

A: The GTX 1660 requires a single 8-pin power connector, while the Tesla C2075 needs one 6-pin and one 8-pin connector. The suggested PSU rating is 300 W for the GTX 1660 and 550 W for the Tesla C2075.

Architecture Differences

The GeForce GTX 1660 is built on the Turing architecture using the TU116 chip, manufactured on a 12 nm process at TSMC. This is a consumer-oriented design with 1,408 shading units, 88 texture mapping units, and 48 ROPs. The Tesla C2075 uses the older Fermi 2.0 architecture with the GF110 chip, produced on a 40 nm process. It has only 448 shading units and 56 TMUs, but matches the GTX 1660 with 48 ROPs.

The process node difference is stark: 12 nm versus 40 nm. This directly influences transistor density, with the GTX 1660 packing 6,600 million transistors into a 284 mm² die, while the Tesla C2075 fits just 3,000 million transistors into a larger 520 mm² die. The GTX 1660's density of 23.2M/mm² is roughly four times higher than the Tesla C2075's 5.8M/mm².

Clock speeds further separate the two. The GTX 1660 has a base clock of 1530 MHz and a boost clock of 1785 MHz. The Tesla C2075 has no base or boost clock listed, but its memory runs at 783 MHz compared to the GTX 1660's 2001 MHz. This clock advantage translates directly into compute throughput: the GTX 1660 delivers 5.027 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the Tesla C2075 manages only 1,027.7 GFLOPS.

The GTX 1660 also supports FP16 compute at 10.05 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), a feature entirely absent from the Tesla C2075. Both cards lack ray tracing and tensor cores. The Tesla C2075 does have a wider memory bus at 384-bit versus the GTX 1660's 192-bit, but this does not compensate for its lower memory clock and bandwidth.

Where Each One Wins

The GeForce GTX 1660 wins in every measurable category from the data. It dominates in raw compute performance, as shown by its 360.1% lead in Geekbench OpenCL. The GTX 1660 also excels in modern API support, with Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12_1, making it suitable for contemporary gaming and graphics workloads that leverage these interfaces.

The Tesla C2075 has no benchmark wins in the head-to-head data. Its only advantage lies in the wider 384-bit memory bus, which is a theoretical benefit but is undermined by its lower bandwidth of 150.3 GB/s. The card's professional positioning is evident from its Tesla series name, but the data shows it falls behind in all performance metrics.

For gaming and general graphics tasks, the GTX 1660 is clearly superior. Its higher pixel rate of 85.68 GPixel/s and texture rate of 157.1 GTexel/s indicate much faster rasterization. The Tesla C2075's 16.07 GPixel/s and 32.14 GTexel/s are more than five times lower, making it unsuitable for modern interactive workloads.

For compute-focused tasks, the GTX 1660 still wins decisively. Its FP32 performance of 5.027 TFLOPS is nearly five times the Tesla C2075's 1,027.7 GFLOPS. The GTX 1660 also offers FP16 support, which the Tesla C2075 lacks entirely, potentially accelerating certain machine learning and scientific workloads.

Specification Differences

| Specification | GeForce GTX 1660 | Tesla C2075 |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | Turing | Fermi 2.0 |

| Process Node | 12 nm | 40 nm |

| Transistors | 6,600 million | 3,000 million |

| Die Size | 284 mm² | 520 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 23.2M / mm² | 5.8M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1530 MHz | null |

| Boost Clock | 1785 MHz | null |

| Memory Clock | 2001 MHz (8 Gbps effective) | 783 MHz (3.1 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Bus | 192 bit | 384 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 192.1 GB/s | 150.3 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1408 | 448 |

| TMUs | 88 | 56 |

| Pixel Rate | 85.68 GPixel/s | 16.07 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 157.1 GTexel/s | 32.14 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 5.027 TFLOPS | 1,027.7 GFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 10.05 TFLOPS (2:1) | null |

| TDP | 120 W | 247 W |

| Power Connectors | 1x 8-pin | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 300 W | 550 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a | 1x DVI |

| DirectX Support | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_0) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | null |

| Length | 229 mm (9 inches) | 248 mm (9.8 inches) |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only shared benchmark between the two cards is Geekbench OpenCL, and the results are lopsided. The GTX 1660 scores 47,850, while the Tesla C2075 scores 10,400. This gives the GTX 1660 a 360.1% advantage, meaning it is over four and a half times faster in this compute test.

This single data point is telling. The GTX 1660's 5.027 TFLOPS FP32 performance and 10.05 TFLOPS FP16 capability far exceed the Tesla C2075's 1,027.7 GFLOPS FP32 output. The GTX 1660 also benefits from a higher memory bandwidth of 192.1 GB/s versus 150.3 GB/s, which helps in memory-bound workloads.

In terms of rasterization, the GTX 1660's pixel rate of 85.68 GPixel/s is more than five times the Tesla C2075's 16.07 GPixel/s. The texture rate difference is even more pronounced: 157.1 GTexel/s versus 32.14 GTexel/s. These figures suggest the GTX 1660 would handle graphics-intensive tasks with far greater ease.

The GTX 1660 also has a significant advantage in clock speed. Its base clock of 1530 MHz and boost of 1785 MHz are substantially higher than the Tesla C2075's memory clock of 783 MHz, though the latter is a different metric. The GTX 1660's 1,408 shading units dwarf the Tesla C2075's 448, providing more parallel processing capacity.

The Verdict

The data unequivocally favors the GeForce GTX 1660. With a 360.1% lead in the only head-to-head benchmark, it outclasses the Tesla C2075 in every performance metric measured. The GTX 1660's modern Turing architecture, smaller 12 nm process node, and higher clock speeds combine to deliver superior compute, pixel, and texture throughput.

For gaming, the GTX 1660 is the clear choice. Its support for DirectX 12_1 and Vulkan 1.4 ensures compatibility with current graphics APIs, while the Tesla C2075's older DirectX 12 (11_0) and lack of Vulkan support make it obsolete for modern titles. The GTX 1660's multiple display outputs, including HDMI 2.0 and DisplayPort 1.4a, also make it practical for consumer use, whereas the Tesla C2075 has only a single DVI output.

For compute workloads, the GTX 1660 still wins decisively. Its FP32 performance of 5.027 TFLOPS is nearly five times the Tesla C2075's 1,027.7 GFLOPS. The addition of FP16 support at 10.05 TFLOPS further extends its utility in mixed-precision applications. The Tesla C2075's higher TDP of 247 W versus the GTX 1660's 120 W also makes it less efficient, requiring a 550 W PSU compared to 300 W.

The Tesla C2075's only nominal advantages are its wider 384-bit memory bus and larger die size of 520 mm². Neither translates into practical performance benefits, as the GTX 1660 achieves higher bandwidth with a narrower bus. The GTX 1660's launch MSRP of 219 USD further underscores its position as the more accessible option.

In summary, the GeForce GTX 1660 is the superior GPU across all data points. The Tesla C2075, while historically significant as a Fermi-era compute card, cannot compete with the modern Turing-based architecture. Users seeking any level of contemporary graphics or compute performance should choose the GTX 1660 without hesitation.